Headlines

Mike Murphy

How to fix the GOP brand

A debate will now rage inside the GOP between the purists, who will as always call for more purity, and the pragmatists, who will demand modernization. The media, always culturally alien to intra-Republican struggles, will badly mislabel this contest as one between “moderate” and “right-wing” Republicans. In fact, the epic battle we Republicans face now is a choice between two definitions of conservatism.

One offers steadfast opposition to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization. The alternative is a more secular and modernizing conservatism that eschews most social issues to focus on creating a wide-open opportunity society that promises greater economic freedom and the reform of government institutions like schools that are vital to upward social mobility.

The battle lines are already drawn. While the electoral arithmetic is obvious, teaching basic math to a political party is no simple matter. The lesson usually requires the heavy hammer of multiple crushing and painful election defeats. Whether the GOP has learned its lesson yet is the big question. The party’s biggest funders, mostly hardheaded business types, are in shock and high dudgeon after providing a virtual blank check to a GOP apparatus that promised much and delivered very little. Among this group, there is much frustration with the party’s perceived focus on divisive social issues and even some dark talk of a donor strike.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The GOP has lost it’s way. It doesn’t listen to it’s base. We knew we need a real conservative to beat Obama but we got Romney. McCain is saying we need to become more liberal. All the Democrats agree. And I think that’s what the GOP will listen to….. and continue to lose and lose.

I’m tired of the stupid talking point that Republicans focus too much on “divisive social issues.” It’s the media that focuses on it. The problem is some in the GOP are not apparently intelligent enough to respond to their questions and/or discuss their views in a way that doesn’t alienate 90% of the country. Then, the media uses these morons to paint anybody right-leaning on social issues as a nut.

The standard right-leaning views on social issues are not non-mainstream. The media tries to portray them as such, and stupid Republicans who say stupid things don’t help, they make it easier for the media.

I’m tired of the stupid talking point that Republicans focus too much on “divisive social issues.” It’s the media that focuses on it. The problem is some in the GOP are not apparently intelligent enough to respond to their questions and/or discuss their views in a way that doesn’t alienate 90% of the country. Then, the media uses these morons to paint anybody right-leaning on social issues as a nut.

The standard right-leaning views on social issues are not non-mainstream. The media tries to portray them as such, and stupid Republicans who say stupid things don’t help, they make it easier for the media.

Fezzik on November 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I asked this in another thread, but it seems to fit here, as well:

Alright. So, let’s say that you want an exception for rape. Let’s also say a politician is true to his pro-life commitment, and is against an exception for rape. What honeyed words should that politician use in order to defend his position without everyone going apesh1t over it?

Among this group, there is much frustration with the party’s perceived focus on divisive social issues and even some dark talk of a donor strike.

Right now the Tories have not just switched to being in favor of redefining marriage even though they have civil partnerships which are the same except in name but they are pushing to force the Church of England to force churches to marry gays. The Tory party will cease to exist once this passes.

The GOP did not focus on social issues this cycle. The democrats did. The GOP lost because they didn’t answer, not because of the answer they have. If they can’t hold on an issue on marriage where do they make a stand? Transsexuals using girls bathrooms?

It’s clear they refuse to hold a stance on taxes and other fiscal issues. If they abandon social issues too I don’t see what the purpose of having 2 parties is.

The GOP establishment is an oligarchy now, you can’t fix it. They changed the rules at the Republican Nation Convention in Tampa so that in all future primary races the GOP establishment can invent and change the rules on the fly, in the middle of the primary. In other words they granted themselves the right to cheat. That means that no candidate that truly challenges the GOP establishment can ever win the nomination the way Reagan did. That means that the Tea Party, Reagan-conservatives, the grass roots in general, including the Ron Paul types, types have been shut out and cannot “fix the GOP brand”.

One offers steadfast opposition to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization. The alternative is a more secular and modernizing conservatism that eschews most social issues to focus on creating a wide-open opportunity society that promises greater economic freedom and the reform of government institutions like schools that are vital to upward social mobility.

They are not social trends, they are imposed on us trends thanks to government meddling.

Hint, as long as the government subsidizes self imposed hardship, we will never get rid of multiculturalism which means conflict. Greater conflict leads to greater use of government power to stop the conflict. It is like putting a Jew who had his family killed in a suicide bombing in a house with the parent of the suicide bomber and then expecting there to be no violence between the two. Greater force is required to make them tolerate one another.

This is why I do not particularly care for libertarianism, as it is intended to create the greatest level of diversity and the least amount of government force. Those two cannot reside in the same community. Either people are melted into a single group with very little difference in culture between them, or government force must be increased to prevent the violence that would otherwise be certain to occur.

The struggles of the Democratic Party in its wilderness years from 1968 to 1992 provide two possible answers. Will the GOP, like the Democrats of 1992, find a path to pivot toward electability and the actual governing power that goes with it?

This man is an idiot. Wilderness? The Democrats had an ironclad hold on all of Congress almost that entire time. In the 70′s we got the EPA, the Dept. of Ed and countless more liberal crap. Only during Reagan’s 8 years was there even modest push back against them.

What was the Democrats pivot in 1992? Getting Ross Perot to run? Bill Clinton did win a majority of the popular vote in 92 or 96 and the Dems lost congress.

The media tries to portray them as such, and stupid Republicans who say stupid things don’t help, they make it easier for the media.

Fezzik on November 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM

For some reason it seems like the repubs are just not able to use the same tactics. There are numerous examples of Obama and other dems putting their feet in their mouths with outrageous claims and promises.
Why did no one ask Obama about his strategy of purposely destroying the coal industry, or purposing having a policy the would make everyones energy bills “necessarily skyrocket” and if he still felt that way…or why he appointed an energy sec. who stated he wanted gas prices to rise to EU level for the purpose of forcing “green energy” on a unwilling public? How about the number and budgets of all the czars..etc.etc.

You know the msm would have chewed on every one of those issues every day.
I know..I know..old news, but there is that saying that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, is nuts.
The repubs have become so predictable that the left can just phone it in.

The sooner that people realize that the D/R establishments are too corrupt to save, the sooner we can get America back on a productive track toward freedom and liberty.

It would be great if there was a national movement in America in which people on both sides of the political spectrum got fed up with the corrupt elites on both sides and agreed to throw out the entrenched elites everywhere and start over with new political parties, (or something), and viewership at MSNBC and Fox News and other MSM outlets dropped off a cliff instead of the economy and people started watching more freedom/liberty oriented media outlets instead.

Let’s have a political system in which all the people who support freedom and liberty the most are in one party, the dominant one I hope, and all the people who support authoritarian statism and force in the other minority party.

Alright. So, let’s say that you want an exception for rape. Let’s also say a politician is true to his pro-life commitment, and is against an exception for rape. What honeyed words should that politician use in order to defend his position without everyone going apesh1t over it?

cptacek on November 29, 2012 at 4:01 PM

cptacek on November 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I’m not sure of the best answer. I am by no means a political communications specialist. But, I think we can agree that there are better ways of answering the question than saying that rape victims have a way of “shutting it down” when they are being “legitimately raped” the result of which being that it’s impossible for women to become pregnant by rapist, yes?

I think the most important thing to do would be to, for starters:

1. Acknowledge reality. There is no way in the current political landscape that the morning after pill is going to be banned. It’s just not going to happen.
2. Point out that it’s your personal belief and acknowledge that it’s not on your agenda to go to DC to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest.
3. Push policies that reduce the number of rapes.

I guess if your view is that in spite of the overwhelming odds, one of the top items on your agenda is going to be to go to DC to ban all abortions and morning after pills, I guess there is no way to say that without everyone going apesh1t over it.

I know it’s an unpopular thing to point out in some circles but our candidates need to acknowledge reality when discussing abortion. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is by electing a president that can appoint conservative judges that can overturn it. Why do our legislators even entertain the idea that they themselves would be able to go around banning abortions for rape victims even if they wanted to? They don’t have the power. What’s wrong with acknowledging that? I am certain that there are people out there who vote Democrat because they are afraid Republican legislators are gonna ban abortion. It’s not going to happen, and why Republican legislators act like they can make it happen only hurts us.

Also, it wouldn’t hurt to turn it around and point out that there are many on the left, including the president, who are just as “extreme” when it comes to abortion on the other side of the spectrum. Talk about partial birth abortion, that will get the media to move onto the next topic.

I’m not sure of the best answer. I am by no means a political communications specialist. But, I think we can agree that there are better ways of answering the question than saying that rape victims have a way of “shutting it down” when they are being “legitimately raped” the result of which being that it’s impossible for women to become pregnant by rapist, yes?

I think the most important thing to do would be to, for starters:

1. Acknowledge reality. There is no way in the current political landscape that the morning after pill is going to be banned. It’s just not going to happen.
2. Point out that it’s your personal belief and acknowledge that it’s not on your agenda to go to DC to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest.
3. Push policies that reduce the number of rapes.

I guess if your view is that in spite of the overwhelming odds, one of the top items on your agenda is going to be to go to DC to ban all abortions and morning after pills, I guess there is no way to say that without everyone going apesh1t over it.

I know it’s an unpopular thing to point out in some circles but our candidates need to acknowledge reality when discussing abortion. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is by electing a president that can appoint conservative judges that can overturn it. Why do our legislators even entertain the idea that they themselves would be able to go around banning abortions for rape victims even if they wanted to? They don’t have the power. What’s wrong with acknowledging that? I am certain that there are people out there who vote Democrat because they are afraid Republican legislators are gonna ban abortion. It’s not going to happen, and why Republican legislators act like they can make it happen only hurts us.

Fezzik on November 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Comfort is not greater than life. Simple argument that should be true to every single human alive today. The comfort of one person does not supersede the life of another.

We only kill to defend other life, never to just simply be more comfortable.

The sins of the father are not to be passed onto the son. A life is a life, no matter how it came into being. The child is innocent and the comfort of the mother does not supersede the right to life of the child.
Comfort is not a greater value to our society than life, at least it should not be. If we write a law that says that comfort is of greater import to us than the comfort life of another, then we institutionalize this idea through our laws.
All laws are morals, all laws are morals.

Hey, isn’t it obvious? The GOP candidate was flawless this year. It was the electorate that needs fixing.

/sarc

Aitch748 on November 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM

That’s the problem the GOP has already fixed the electorate. This demographic change didn’t have to happen, and it wouldn’t have if the GOP had cared as much about the illegal issue as they do about international free trade, and the right to off shore jobs. The GOP chose to turn a blind eye on this crime and with the aid of the Democrats didn’t enforce our borders.

Now they whine because the cheap labor they slipped across the border doesn’t vote for them. Lets look at our friend John McCain who has started up again about comprehensive immigration reform. What if, and this is a crazy idea but stay with me, what if he had pushed enforcement as hard as he’s pushed for amnesty this last decade? They can attempt to call this a demographic issue, but this has been nothing but the GOP choosing to not enforce our laws to appease it’s small business base.

I’m not discussing the merits of the policy. I just think that pro-life advocates should think strategically. If you ultimately want to ban morning after pills, start with the lower hanging fruit. Don’t go around calling women who made a mistake and had to take a morning after pill or two in their lives murderers. If we get to a point in our society where abortion is illegal, the overton window have moved and people will be more receptive to the idea. No sense on focusing on banning the morning after pill now, when half the society is OK with terminating developed fetuses.

I’m not sure of the best answer. I am by no means a political communications specialist. But, I think we can agree that there are better ways of answering the question than saying that rape victims have a way of “shutting it down” when they are being “legitimately raped” the result of which being that it’s impossible for women to become pregnant by rapist, yes?

I agree that Akin’s comments were not helpful, stupid and he should have apologized for them. Which he DID, but wasn’t good enough, apparently.

However, Akins and Mourdock did not say the same thing. Mourdock said:
“Life is a gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen.”

I think the most important thing to do would be to, for starters:

1. Acknowledge reality. There is no way in the current political landscape that the morning after pill is going to be banned. It’s just not going to happen.
2. Point out that it’s your personal belief and acknowledge that it’s not on your agenda to go to DC to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest.
3. Push policies that reduce the number of rapes.

Mourdock’s statement hits #2 above. That was his personal belief, that all life, no matter the situation of how it came about, is a gift from God. He still got excoriated for that.

I guess if your view is that in spite of the overwhelming odds, one of the top items on your agenda is going to be to go to DC to ban all abortions and morning after pills, I guess there is no way to say that without everyone going apesh1t over it.

No one this past cycle mentioned anything about making anything illegal. I know. I was looking for it. At most, they talked about not making those who disagree with it personally pay for it for someone else. Others conflated that into bans.

I know it’s an unpopular thing to point out in some circles but our candidates need to acknowledge reality when discussing abortion. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is by electing a president that can appoint conservative judges that can overturn it. Why do our legislators even entertain the idea that they themselves would be able to go around banning abortions for rape victims even if they wanted to? They don’t have the power. What’s wrong with acknowledging that? I am certain that there are people out there who vote Democrat because they are afraid Republican legislators are gonna ban abortion. It’s not going to happen, and why Republican legislators act like they can make it happen only hurts us.

Fezzik on November 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM

You are right about this. We can chip away at the edges, but that is it until Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The question remains, though. Is there any way to defend your personal pro-life stance in all cases without being lied about? Without your words being twisted to say something you didn’t say and don’t mean?

I’m not discussing the merits of the policy. I just think that pro-life advocates should think strategically. If you ultimately want to ban morning after pills, start with the lower hanging fruit. Don’t go around calling women who made a mistake and had to take a morning after pill or two in their lives murderers. If we get to a point in our society where abortion is illegal, the overton window have moved and people will be more receptive to the idea. No sense on focusing on banning the morning after pill now, when half the society is OK with terminating developed fetuses.

Fezzik on November 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Who at the national level talked about a ban on the morning after pill?

I think the GOP needs to realize that many groups see us as the party of big, intrusive government. Why? Because the left successfully puts us in positions where we’re trying to tell people what they can and can’t do.

Democrats create wedge issues for every group they can think of, and each group ends up believing that we’re actively trying to take their freedoms away. If we really believe in a small Federal government, we need to stop trying to legislate morality. And stop making new laws governing everything from marriage to immigration – we can focus on enforcing existing laws and simplifying the legal and tax codes.

That said, what we’re behind on is GOTV ability. We need to be building a system for that now. And we should work on finding the most effective terms to use in delivering our messages.

The battle is between those who want to make the case for and promote the benefits of free market solutions and those who want to capitulate to nanny state statism.

besser tot als rot on November 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

No here is the problem:

Unfortunately, the new post-America has reached the point where who is the better economic manager may no longer matter.

Take Nevada. While ostensibly a swing state, it is all but guaranteed to go Democratic despite having the worst economy in the country. The housing crisis, fueled by mass immigration and Bush’s mortgage Hispandering, has devastated the state. Unemployment is well over 11 percent, and has actually increased considerably from when Barack Obama took office.

But the state’s high concentration of Hispanics combined with blacks means that there is a large percentage of the population simply beyond economic appeals. In fact, Hispanic voters in Nevada may even flip a Senate seat to the Democrats, despite the fact that their candidate is under investigation for corruption and wasn’t even expected to be competitive.

A story from Illinois’s 2nd Congressional District illustrates what is happening to the country as a whole. Incumbent Jesse Jackson Jr. has been on medical leave since June for a variety of “health issues.” This hasn’t stopped him from hitting the bars with his friends, although he hasn’t held a single campaign event or public appearance. His wife is sticking by his side, despite his past adultery (with a blonde bikini model) which is now public knowledge. This might have something to do with the several thousand dollars a month his campaign pays her “consulting firm.” Jackson is also the subject of an ongoing federal probe into his questionable finances.

But there is absolutely no chance that Republicans can make this race even close. Jackson has an absolute majority in the polls in a three-way race, despite doing no campaigning.

This might have something to do with the fact that Republican candidate Brian Woodworth, a white lawyer trying to represent a majority black, urban county, wants to win voters by telling them “Government needs to get off the backs of businesses.” Even more exciting, he is challenging not just the laws of political reality, but mathematics itself by claiming, “I am not looking to protect the “1%”; I will be working to provide more opportunity for every American to become part of the “1%.”

This economism doesn’t seem to be doing much good, even though unemployment in both Illinois and Chicago is worse than in the country as a whole.

Black and Hispanic identity politics make increasingly areas of the country essentially immune to elections. As in South Africa’s one-party state, it doesn’t matter what the economy is doing or what policies are pursued – after the nominations, everyone knows who is going to win the election. Regardless of how bad unemployment is in Stockton, California or Detroit, Michigan, Republicans are not going to win on a platform of tax cuts for the rich and pious platitudes about a Constitution written by hated white males.

Mourdock’s statement hits #2 above. That was his personal belief, that all life, no matter the situation of how it came about, is a gift from God. He still got excoriated for that.

Agreed about Murdock. He didn’t say anything crazy, the media twisted what he said.

No one this past cycle mentioned anything about making anything illegal. I know. I was looking for it. At most, they talked about not making those who disagree with it personally pay for it for someone else. Others conflated that into bans.

Right, but I think many are left with that impression, whether that’s fair or not. For some reason American’s seem to think that if a politician feels one way about something, it’s going to be reflected in his legislation. This might have something to do with the fact that the federal government does EVERYTHING now-a-days. That’s why I think politicians should be clear about what is on their agenda, and what isn’t.

The question remains, though. Is there any way to defend your personal pro-life stance in all cases without being lied about? Without your words being twisted to say something you didn’t say and don’t mean?

cptacek on November 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Yeah. It sucks. It’s reality though. That’s why I think it’s important to be clear on what your intentions are as a legislator and how that relates to the question at hand. We see this with other things too. Any fiscal hawk who talks about reforming Medicare, SS, etc. is going to be cast as wanting to “kill” the program. That’s how the left and the media work. No easy solution to that problem.

Who at the national level talked about a ban on the morning after pill?

cptacek on November 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Nobody, but go ask low-information voters and liberals if Republican legislators want to. The fact that many will respond that there are Republicans who talk about and want to do this didn’t happen by accident.